Friday, January 30, 2009

Questions For The Competition is a weekly column that addresses our issues with the brackets of other bracketology "experts." This week's questions are for ESPN.com's Joe Lunardi, Andy Glockner of CNNSI.com, and Mark Huguenin of Rivals.com.

Keep in mind that these questions are about each bracketologist's latest bracket, the date of which is listed below.

Joe Lunardi (ESPN.com) - Jan. 26 Bracket

So after our weeks of requesting, you finally bring BYU back down to where they should be in your field (from a 7 to 12 after going 1-1 last week). But then you go out and throw TCU in your field?? Shouldn't UNLV get the automatic bid since they were tied for first with TCU and had the higher RPI? Or do you have some clause that says since TCU beat UNLV they get the auto bid? Could you please clear this up?

Furthermore, how are five MWC teams either in your bracket or in the Last Eight Out? San Diego State is worthy of the Next Four Out line, but Penn State isn't?

How is UCLA a 7 and Washington an 8 when the Huskies just beat the Bruins and are a game up on them in conference?

What is up with your SEC seeding? Kentucky has done enough to warrant a 4 seed? And we know Tennessee has some wins, but with their recent struggles on their home court, they are still a 7? And how is Florida, given those other seeds, on the nine line?

Andy Glockner (CNNSI.com) - Jan. 26 Bracket

We agree that Illinois deserves a 4, but why the hatred for the rest of the Big Ten? Minnesota an 8? Purdue a 10? Ohio State an 11? Michigan a 13? The Wolverines don't have a better resume than everyone on your 12 line (Utah, Villanova, VCU, and Wisconsin)?

If the season ended today, how would three MWC teams get bids?

How is Tennessee a 7 and Kentucky an 8 when Kentucky beat the Vols on their home floor and are ahead in conference?

Baylor a 7 seed?

Mike Huguenin (Rivals.com)- Jan. 28 Bracket

We appreciate seeing more and more new bracketologists go with the B101-inspired projection method (even though the trademarked "projection-prediction" method that we employ is still the most reliable). Using that method, how do you figure it's possible for 2 ACC and 2 Big East teams to get #1 seeds after they all beat up on each other?

LSU will win the SEC West and get a bid? Where have we heard that before? Our write-up on Monday?

Do you do a straight "projection" bracket because it's harder for people to argue with you? Or are you trying to be ballsy and take a stand on teams (and if that's the case, why do you seem to doubt those stands in your commentary)?

3 comments:

I love the big ten. But this might be the most overrated i've ever seen it. A 7 big league, 8 bid league? That seems like a big stretch. Though i think the reasoning is more that the other conferences like the SEC, Big 12 and Pac10 are not quite as dominant this year.

Michigan State and Purdue are both very good teams. They should both be atleast 3 seeds. Minnesota and Illinois are taking advantage of opportunities and winning the games they should. I don't think Ohio St., Michigan, Wisconsin or Penn.St are capable of winning a tournament game.

I would guess that Ohio St will get better as the year goes along and sneak in. Wisconsin's schedule gives them a chance to finish well and possibly get a bid. I expect PSU and MICH to finish below .500 in the big 10 and i can't see that getting them in.

Mich State and Purdue like elite 8 teams to me. But i wouldn't bet on any other big ten team winning a tourney game.

We pretty much agree with you and it is almost certain we will downgrade the league to 6 bids on Sunday. The only reason the conference held on to seven bids so long is because of the lack of quality mid-major teams and Big 10 teams got some good OOC wins. It is definetely a strong and deep league but things really need to go your way if you are going to get 7 out of 11 teams in the tourney.

Bracketology 101 has been featured in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Wall Street Journal and on ESPN Radio affiliates across the country. The site is designed to serve as a more reliable, more accurate alternative to the Bracketology selections of other major sports websites.
Rather than predict teams based on the season ending today, or make wild predictions of the future, Bracketology 101 uses a unique "projection-prediction" method of selecting teams, giving fans a much more realistic idea of where their favorite teams stand in the eyes of the selection committee.
While other bracketologists favor conferences or teams or rely entirely on RPI rankings in making their picks, we factor in a team's resume as a whole - big wins, bad losses, in and out-of-conference wins, upcoming schedules, conference tournament sites, and each team's overall strengths and weaknesses compared to other teams on the bubble. Our "Field of 68" is updated every Monday throughout the season, with daily updates coming during Championship Week.

Join The B101 Team!

Do you want to advertise on Bracketology 101 during March Madness? Do you want to sponsor one of our upcoming daily brackets? E-mail us at bracketologyblog@yahoo.com for ad rates and details.

Follow B101 On Twitter

Bracketology 101 is now on Twitter! To follow B101 on Twitter, just click on the Twitter logo above.

How B101 Stacks Up

The numbers speak for themselves: Over the last five years, Bracketology 101 is the most accurate bracketology site on the Internet. We produced the best bracket in 2006, the second best in 2007 and 2008, and the fifth best in 2009. We are the only bracketologists to produce a Top 5 bracket four of the last five years. No other bracketologist has placed in the Top 5 more than twice. For a complete breakdown of our bracket stats from the last four years, click on the “We’re #1!” logo above.

The 40-60 Club

On top of correctly predicting 64 of the 65 tournament teams in 2008, Bracketology 101 also became the first bracketology site to ever seed 40 teams exactly and 60 teams within one seed line of their actual seed. Through 2010, we are the only bracketology site to earn this distinction.